The trend is warming, but you still try to diffuse that by taking short term snippets of data an claiming the warming "has stopped" for whatever reason.

What is the length of time for those actual measurements used to draw the conclusion of causation?

Well yes, it has temporarily stopped. That's what the data shows. The LT Temperatures and the Surface Temperatures have shown us flatlining for 11 years now.

Really, and if we were to take your word on it, is 11 years is sufficient time to show such a trend in your opinion?

Look at all of the flatlined temperatures:

Quote:

Look at the Diurnal Temperatures after a Forbush Decrease. Look at the Global Aerosoles measured by AERONET after a Forbush Decrease. Look at the CERN results that PROVED that Cosmic Rays can impact Cloud Cover.

To name a few.

I will repeat the question as you seemed to have missed it in the support song and dance routine. What is the length of time for those actual measurements used to draw the conclusion of causation?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Which in no way supports the conclusion the data is not correct other than the desire for it to be so due to the prior decision to be skeptical about certain aspects only.

Again, I have said multiple times now that the data is pretty poor in this range, and one should not base their conclusions off of this dataset.

Actually, you said this dataset was contaminated, whcih was the conclusion with which I disagreed.

Quote:

We pretty much had no data in this range before 2003, so we don't know if the OHC gain for this range has slowed down as well. We don't know if it has flatlined or not, because there was no data before 2003 for the 0-2000 meter dataset.

We "pretty much" again?

Quote:

The discrepency between 0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters in Warmair's graph is because of the ARGO floats being deployed in 2003-2005. Note that the two datasets are identical to each other until recently over the last several years.

That's because there is NO data for the 0-2000 m range for this timeframe.

We simply do not know if it has flatlined or if it has slowed, because there is no data before this timeframe for the 0-2000 m range.

I repeat the graph does not indicate a flatline, so we know it has not flatlined. It does not matter if it has slowed since we have the slope of the current level of increase showing the increase.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The data measured for 0-2000 meters of the ocean is way more uncertain than the 0-700 meter range, since there aren't as many sensors that extend as far deep as 2000 meters. Since we have not observed heat mixing through the 0-700 meter depth of the ocean over the last 9 years, while it has flatlined in the 0-700 meter range, we can conclude that the data for 0-2000 meters is likely contaminated, which would make sense, since it is an uncertain sporadic dataset.

Note the bold portion.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

So that is why we see so many claims of warming being "natural" and "AGW is false"? The actions speak louder.

So if I argue that Global Warming is natural, that automatically makes me not concerned? Interesting hypothesis. Eventually, if we do warm at the rate of what the IPCC projects, the negatives will soon outweigh the positives. If CO2 starts to become a driver of Climate due to excess amounts of it being pumped into the air in the future, making the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise to unprecedented proportions, then we need to be concerned. If CO2 as a driver accelerates in concentration in the atmosphere, then temperature itself will accelerate.

Just because of that possibility, I'm concerned.

Quote:

Why not? If the solar output decreases even with added CO2 there will be a decrease in temperature potential. The scenarios are run with an "all other things equal" and "over the long term" criteria you seem to always miss when making claims about them.

Yes, which is what makes GCM forecasts very unreliable, because the climate system is a chaotic system.

Quote:

But you appraoch it as if the ACRIM was correct .... and the other supporting data seems to side with PMOD.

I don't think so.

I'm siding with ACRIM on this issue, only because PMOD uses uncorrected ERBE/ERBS data during the ACRIM gap, which had a totally different slope with the TSI than the higher quality data sources like ERB/NIMBUS7 that were also measuring TSI at the time. This means that the PMOD dataset is in question, because of the data choices it used during the ACRIM Gap, and its lack of corrections for the faulty data.

Quote:

Then why focus on trying to find every little flaw you can claim makes the difference?

That's what science is about, testing other alternate theories, and seeing which one seems the most plausable. Given the impressive correlation to temperature and TSI over the past 400 years, (including the last 30 years if you use ACRIM) I'm willing to go with a higher Solar influence on Climate than most AGW Advocates would.

See the graphic above, it is a sporadic and possibly contaminated dataset, with very few floats, even in 2003. The increase in floats could have contaminated the dataset as well, by measuring heat content in depths where sensors were not measuring heat before.

Really, and if we were to take your word on it, is 11 years is sufficient time to show such a trend in your opinion?

I will repeat the question as you seemed to have missed it in the support song and dance routine. What is the length of time for those actual measurements used to draw the conclusion of causation?

According to Dr. Santer, 17 years is needed to claim a new "trend" in the temperature data, but I have no clue how he gets that number.

I don't think there is a number for GCRs, I could be mistaken though, the evidence for a significant GCR influence on Cloud Cover rests with FDs, because it is the HIGH ENERGY GCRs that impact Low Cloud Cover. We have not been able to separate the two yet, but we can observe the effects that High Energy GCRs have with Cloud Cover during FDs where sudden decreases in GCRs are observed.

Really, and if we were to take your word on it, is 11 years is sufficient time to show such a trend in your opinion?

I will repeat the question as you seemed to have missed it in the support song and dance routine. What is the length of time for those actual measurements used to draw the conclusion of causation?

According to Dr. Santer, 17 years is needed to claim a new "trend" in the temperature data, but I have no clue how he gets that number.

I don't think there is a number for GCRs, I could be mistaken though, the evidence for a significant GCR influence on Cloud Cover rests with FDs, because it is the HIGH ENERGY GCRs that impact Low Cloud Cover. We have not been able to separate the two yet, but we can observe the effects that High Energy GCRs have with Cloud Cover during FDs where sudden decreases in GCRs are observed.

So you are saying there are NO measurements over any period of time to support your belief in that hypothesis? How can that be when you were so adament that the 2003 to the present data was insufficient evidence for anything? It seems to be a double standard to me.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

So that is why we see so many claims of warming being "natural" and "AGW is false"? The actions speak louder.

So if I argue that Global Warming is natural, that automatically makes me not concerned? Interesting hypothesis. Eventually, if we do warm at the rate of what the IPCC projects, the negatives will soon outweigh the positives. If CO2 starts to become a driver of Climate due to excess amounts of it being pumped into the air in the future, making the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise to unprecedented proportions, then we need to be concerned. If CO2 as a driver accelerates in concentration in the atmosphere, then temperature itself will accelerate.

Just because of that possibility, I'm concerned.

Which is belied by your actions in so many attempts to claim there is no warming due to human influences over the time I have known you.

Quote:

Quote:

Why not? If the solar output decreases even with added CO2 there will be a decrease in temperature potential. The scenarios are run with an "all other things equal" and "over the long term" criteria you seem to always miss when making claims about them.

Yes, which is what makes GCM forecasts very unreliable, because the climate system is a chaotic system.

You do a good job of dancing away from the point. You take the forecasts at a yearly track and claim failure at the scentury mark. That is not accurate nor very realistic.

Quote:

Quote:

But you appraoch it as if the ACRIM was correct .... and the other supporting data seems to side with PMOD.

I don't think so.

That would be due to you making up your mind before looking into the issue. You have already claimed others were "cherry-picking" by using the PMOD dataset .....

Quote:

I'm siding with ACRIM on this issue, only because PMOD uses uncorrected ERBE/ERBS data during the ACRIM gap, which had a totally different slope with the TSI than the higher quality data sources like ERB/NIMBUS7 that were also measuring TSI at the time. This means that the PMOD dataset is in question, because of the data choices it used during the ACRIM Gap, and its lack of corrections for the faulty data.

Of course you are ..... and there is a problem with insufficient data unless you happen to believe in it ....

Quote:

Quote:

Then why focus on trying to find every little flaw you can claim makes the difference?

That's what science is about, testing other alternate theories, and seeing which one seems the most plausable.

You do not research, you leap to conclusions after reading one version.

Quote:

Given the impressive correlation to temperature and TSI over the past 400 years, (including the last 30 years if you use ACRIM) I'm willing to go with a higher Solar influence on Climate than most AGW Advocates would.

So the temperature record for the last 400 years is now accurate eventhough the accuracy past 150 years is questionable to everyone else?

A model works if you believe in it, right?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein